Beautiful or Playable Maps?

nintendo did it so you can have both but if i could only chose 1 playabilty since the whole map isnt shown in game to see that it is beatiful

there intertwined if the map is ugly I dont want to play it so its not playable if the map is not playable its not beautyful

Ninja Caterpie said:

And Disturbed, most of your maps are awesome-looking to play in too, stop putting yourself down.

Click to expand...

I doesn't like mah old maps though.

And to what you said, Munchlax... who says the maps can't be filled with scripts?

OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH interesting...
well here's what i say.
1)If your posting the map on MRT you want to post a BEAUTIFUL map but where it isn't obviously unplayable (make it atleast somewhat playable, people can tell)
2)If you are doing a hack, you want a little bit different type of map.
Well, you are playing a game so you want playable maps right?
BUT that's not saying that they can't look good either.
I reccomend setting the map and block view size to double
then look at things the way a player would, 15 square blocks (i think that's the right number)
and make a "min-map" without necessarily random big tree placement, but rather a few small trees (i'm talkin 1 or 2 here) and decide if that area should have wild-grass or not.
After you make the map go to regular size and check to see if you missed anything or not.
Make sure the map makes sense.
E.G. your path(s) connect, and that you didn't "misplace" any trees or nothing. Those sort of things, then it's not a bad map necessarily (just remember the little trees aren't necessary every 15 tiles OK?

I have an answer to this..its short and sweet...
a map{if you are making for a hack}must have bothe qualities..its what make the maps look great and nice to play in..

I don't understand why a map can't be both!

Hm. No inbetweens?

I voted for beatiful. Because that's what I'm good at XD
Jokes aside (it's true though), a map can be fun to play even if the play itself is a living ... Am I allowed to say that specific word? Anyways, I think a stunning beauteful map can be good even if it's actually stunning the player, but of course I'd prefer having a winning combination ^^

- Pokey Out!

Maps can be both, but if someone gets too carried away mapping twist, turns, and intricate patterns with trees, you might end up with a maze for a first town. That's not fun.

I say routes can be more creative and still fun to play, but if everything is that detailed, it can be a pain. I've never seen a big city that was really creatively detailed (people are probably too lazy) but that could be really fun.

Man... it's hard to choose. For me a beautiful map gotta be playable and vice-versa.

I like to have both, but when it comes right down to it playability is the primary concern. There could be a square zigzag between towns and I would like it better than a mess of checkerboarded trees that I can't hardly find my way through. Of course, both of those would be hacks that I wouldn't be playing for very long.

Its hard to pick one......but i'll go with....beautiful maps.

My vote goes for beautiful maps. Sure, a well-designed dungeon is good for the soul in most cases, but let's face down the nature of the game; Pokemon is designed around frequent random encounters and a turn-based battle system. This can make long dungeons, even the most intuitive and challenging, with lots of features, seem tedious and boring. Beautifully drawn and perhaps even animated maps, however, bring the game to life. Though, I may be a tad biased. I play hacks on GPSP through a very cramped memory stick, so getting more bang for my megabyte is very important to me.

Overall, I think maps should focus more on visual appeal, so my vote goes for beautiful maps. However, playability is also important, and going overboard with making a map fancy shmancy can kill the playability, thus effectively ruining your efforts (hard to appreciate the beauty of a map when it's a pain just to navigate through). As long as you perfect the visuals of your map without making intricate patterns, paths, twists, turns, etc. then you're good to go.

sasquatchd00d said:

I'm not going to vote because it's both. A beautiful map without playability is still awful and vice versa. Aesthetics and playability go hand in hand really. A map that's beautiful, but only gives me one tile of walking space? No thanks. A map that gives me a wide variety of things to do as well as giving me space to move, but looks terrible? I'll pass. But people tend to lean towards beauty for some reason. Take Pokémon Crono for example. The routes give the player little room to move, yet they look aesthetically pleasing. And this is a very well made hack and quite popular.

Click to expand...

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I voted playable, but it really depends. All maps must be playable but I think it depends on what kind of map it is. If it's free roaming, like a town or a large route, focus on making it look good. If it's a difficult cave late into the game, like Victory Road, Concentrate mostly on playability and keep looks to "no glitches".

-.-

I don't see why a map can't be beautiful and playable at the same time.
You can't have one without the other.

I don't care if its super playable, but if it looks crappy, I'm not playing it. Thus, its not playable.

I think the best is a mix of both. If it's playable and not good looking then I don't really like it. But if it's not even playable then what's the point?

If you ask me, both would be pretty nice to have in a hack >.>